Re: SQL Technique Question
От | |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SQL Technique Question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060615221940.38142.qmail@web33315.mail.mud.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SQL Technique Question (Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>) |
Список | pgsql-sql |
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:59:22PM -0700, > operationsengineer1@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > is it a good practice to leave this included in > the > > queries, as is, or should i factor it out somehow? > if > > i should factor it, how do i do so? > > If what you're saying is that these additional > criteria are > redundant, then it's up to you: what do you want to > optimise for? If > you're protecting against future errors, then the > additional > criteria might help. If you're protecting against > having to write > your code to produce a more efficient query, you > should weigh the > cost and benefit (which benefit includes "easier to > debug queries"). > There is a probably non-zero cost to the extra > joins. Andrew and Rod, my apologies for not being more clear in my question. all the code is required to get from t_inspect_result data back to t_product information. however, many of the joins are used over and over and over - making for a complex query to view and try and to debug - not to mention forcing a long trail of chasing linked data to get from t_inspect_result_id back to the linked t_product data. Thanks for taking the time to address the question - and i will try and be more clear going forward. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
В списке pgsql-sql по дате отправления: